Appointment Made On Contractual Basis Will Not Render Said Appointment Irregular: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an appointment made on a contractual basis will not render the said appointment irregular.
The Court allowed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Petitioners working as Staff Nurses assailing the validity of the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (Tribunal) Judgment in a bunch of Original Applications, whereby the claim of the Petitioners to be treated as having been regularly appointed was not been acceded to.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar held, “ If the regular selection process has been followed in terms of the provisions available in the Service Rules, 1967, merely because initial appointment order of the petitioners described the appointment to be on contract basis, in our considered opinion, it will not render the appointment of the petitioners to be on contract basis or irregular in any manner. In these circumstances, depriving the benefit of regular appointment of the petitioners on the post of Staff Nurse is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.”
Advocate Ramesh Ramamurthy appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Harsh P. Dedhia represented the Respondents.
The Petitioners were initially appointed in 2006 following a selection process conducted by a Departmental Selection Committee. The Petitioners argued that their appointments should be regarded as regular given the public advertisements and the selection process by a properly constituted selection committee.
The Tribunal held that since the advertisement was not issued for a regular appointment and the appointment order of the Petitioners itself mentioned that their appointment was on a contractual basis, the Petitioners’ appointment cannot be termed to be a regular appointment.
The Court noted that the candidates met the educational requirements specified in the Goa Government (Directorate of Health Services) non-ministerial, non-gazetted class III Recruitment Rules, 1967 (1967 Service Rules). The Court directed that the Petitioners were entitled to “all the benefits applicable to a regularly appointed incumbent, including the benefit of seniority, further promotions, benefit of annual increments, ACP and selection grade.”
“The reasoning given by the Tribunal for not accepting the claim of the petitioners is also not tenable. We have already discussed the provisions of the Service Rules, 1967 which did not provide for any specific mode of selection, that is to say, as to whether selection will be based on interview or written examination or on both. The Service Rules, 1967 only provide that the post of Staff Nurse is to be filled in by way of direct recruitment from amongst those who fulfill the requisite educational qualification and the age criteria by way of selection,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court observed, “The Tribunal has, thus, concluded that since the advertisement was not issued for regular appointment and the appointment order of the petitioners itself mentioned that their appointment was on contractual basis, the petitioners’ appointment cannot be termed to be regular appointment...The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is erroneous.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Rakesh Lal Meena & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:42704-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ramesh Ramamurthy and Saikumar Ramamurthy
Respondents: Advocates Harsh P. Dedhia, Amisha Salvi and H.S. Venegavkar
